On Christmas Eve, seven people were shot in the city of Chicago. The media made little mention of the shootings, since they're now routine in Chicago -- the city has seen some 500 shootings in 2012 alone. The vast majority of the shooters are black, and the vast majority of the victims are black. Many of the victims are under the age of 18: Anton Sanders, 15, shot on Jan. 20; Deshun Winfert, 15, shot on Feb. 5; Damion Rolle, 14, shot on Feb. 21; George Howard and Albert Guyton, both 15, shot on Feb. 27 and Feb. 28; the list goes on. A few are under age 10. You've never heard of any of them.

But when an evil white person with a history of mental instability shoots up a school, killing 20 children, most of whom were white, the media is suddenly concerned with gun control.

Perhaps that's because the media is racist. Or perhaps it's something else. If the media pays attention to the shootings in Chicago, it will have to talk about the fact that Chicago is heavily gun controlled. It will have to discuss the fact that guns are illegally flowing into areas of heavy gun violence. And it will have to talk about the impact of social ills like single motherhood, gang recruitment and poor public education.

Instead, the media focuses on Sandy Hook, Aurora and Columbine. Focusing on such statistically aberrant scenarios rather than the more widespread gun violence that plagues our cities allows the media to target one of its most hated groups: the National Rifle Association.

So what does that have to do with Chicago versus Sandy Hook? The media knows that in all shooting scenarios, the conversation quickly polarizes into two positions: ban guns or discuss other myriad social and legal issues that lead to shootings. In communities plagued by high levels of social ills like Chicago, the second position is the more obvious one. In cases of placid communities getting shot up by a nutcase, the left can talk gun bans more easily.

It's far harder to stop Sandy Hook than it is to stop violence in Chicago. But the left doesn't like the possible solutions in Chicago. They prefer to destroy their competition. So the shootings in Chicago will continue. So, in all likelihood, will incidents like Sandy Hook, thanks in large part to the left's focus on destroying its enemies rather than preventing acts of evil.

The NRA contols our politicians, they trample our constitution, they decide the laws of our land and this article has the audacity to claim we are the ones who bully them.
This is adding insult to injury.

Frank Luntz, a top Republican strategist and pollster, said Wednesday that the National Rifle Association's recent calls for armed guards to be stationed at every school in the wake of the Newtown, Conn. massacre suggested the organization isn't listening to public opinion on the issue.

“The public wants guns out of the schools, not in the schools, and they're not asking for a security official or someone else," Luntz said on CBS’s “This Morning,” responding to a proposal first floated by top NRA lobbyist Wayne LaPierre during a press conference last week.

"I don’t think the NRA is listening. I don’t think that they understand," Luntz continued. "Most Americans would protect the Second Amendment rights and yet agree with the idea that not every human being should own a gun, not every gun should be available at anytime, anywhere, for anyone. That at gun shows, you should not be able to buy something there and then without any kind of check whatsoever. What they're looking for is a common-sense approach that says that those who are law-abiding should continue to have the right to own a weapon, but that you don’t believe the right should be extended to everyone at every time for every type of weapon.”

Luntz conducted a survey of gun owners both affiliated and unaffiliated with the NRA earlier this year, which found broad support for certain provisions that would restrict the sale of guns.

Among NRA members, 74 percent said they support background checks as a requirement for concealed carry permits. Recent polls of the broader American populace have showed higher levels of support for that and other gun control measures which the NRA has historically opposed.

The NRA contols our politicians, they trample our constitution, they decide the laws of our land and this article has the audacity to claim we are the ones who bully them.
This is adding insult to injury.

Making guns illegal in one area (or for one class of person) will never work because the guns will still be available.

If you want to prevent gun violence, try reducing the actual number of guns around. Make it actually harder for people to have guns (or at least ammo) and you'll reduce the number of guns being used to kill people.

Telling psychopath killer Bob that he can't have an M16 but Goodguy joe can isn't going to keep Bob from killing you with an M16; it's just going to ensure that the M16 he uses will be obtained from somebody else.

Adam Lanza did not use his own guns to kill those kids! It wouldn't matter if you blacklisted that asshole in every way possible. He used his mom's guns. The only thing that would have stopped him from doing it would have been if he had no option to obtain the weapons.

Australia used to have a real problem with gun violence too. Then they instituted a ban on most weapons, and actually DESTROYED a huge number of them, thus reducing how many are in circulation. As a result, gun violence dropped dramatically.

The US is the only stable, wealthy democracy where gun violence is a major problem. We also have more than twice as many guns per capita than the next closest country. To claim that this is mere coincidence is a lie.

Soon the only people who will really need guns will be rich white republicans. Now that we've solved that problem let's move on to abortion and taxes.

If we let the left have it their way, guns will be only available to police, military, drug dealers, criminals, and some government unit that will come out to occasionally suppress the unhappy citizens who are being squeezed by governments policies.

Making guns illegal in one area (or for one class of person) will never work because the guns will still be available.

Australia and the UK are islands. The US borders a narcostate. Banning guns will work about as well as banning marijuana. The UK and Australian murder rate is only 2 per 100k instead of 4 per 100k, and the UCR is more inclusive than the UK murder rate (don't know about Australia).

Additionally, there are many places in the USA, including large major cities, where the murder rate is 2 per 100k or less. America's high average has more to do with a few shitholes like DC, Detroit, NOLA, and Chicago (and not a few rural methhead areas like Klamath Falls, OR or just about anywhere in Mississippi). In other words, evidence that subcultures are responsible.

We can greatly reduce mass shootings by imposing restrictions on a small group of people - the mentally ill and those who live with them. Teachers and others are already mandatory reporters for abuse. There's no reason the qualified (ie Medical Professionals) can't be required by law to report on somebody's fitness for a firearm to the authorities. Or Pharmacists dial the cops when fulfilling an order for anti-Schizo drugs or SSRIs. Who then come to the house and seize the firearms of all the residents, who have 30 days to sell or store the guns outside the house.

Adam's Mother TAUGHT him how to use Firearms. I don't mean just gun safety. She took him to the range regularly. Is that stupid or what? A severely autistic kid with a myriad of mental health issues should be banned from living in a home with firearms.

Adam Lamza, Seung-Hui Cho, and Anders Brevik ALL had their mental illnesses diagnosed repeatedly by authorities. Even though VT admins were ignorant of Cho's lifelong treatment in Middle and High School, they had him diagnosed after a stalking incident and were aware of his depression and anxiety and recommended him for therapy; Cho's Mom went to her Church for help instead - but that's another rant. There are no excuses anymore. We know what causes mass shootings 90% of the time. Mentally Ill people.

Tough shit if it's discriminatory, it's an easy way to save some lives, both homicide and suicide, without taking everybody's rights away.

We haven't had too many incompetent presidents in this country. Carter, Nixon, Obama are the only 3 I can think of.

You are hilarious. Nobody seems to remember that Ronald Reagan's administration illegally sold arms to radical government factions and used the proceeds to support other radicals in South America, and when questioned about it, Reagan didn't seem to remember anything that was going on in his own administration. Turns out he was already suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer's. Sorry if I blew his chances for sainthood.

If we let the left have it their way, guns will be only available to police, military, drug dealers, criminals, and some government unit that will come out to occasionally suppress the unhappy citizens who are being squeezed by governments policies.

Yeah, the left is always trampling our rights. They instated Homeland Security, the TSA, the Patriot Act, wiretapping, and Guantanamo Bay, and suspended habeas corpus. Oh, wait, that was the right.

Adam Lamza, Seung-Hui Cho, and Anders Brevik ALL had their mental illnesses diagnosed repeatedly by authorities. Even though VT admins were ignorant of Cho's lifelong treatment in Middle and High School, they had him diagnosed after a stalking incident and were aware of his depression and anxiety and recommended him for therapy; Cho's Mom went to her Church for help instead - but that's another rant. There are no excuses anymore. We know what causes mass shootings 90% of the time. Mentally Ill people.

Tough shit if it's discriminatory, it's an easy way to save some lives, both homicide and suicide, without taking everybody's rights away.

Are you really thinking this through? What's your plan, exactly? If a person is diagnosed with autism, we confiscate all guns from that person's family? How far does that go? Do we take guns away from that person's cousins? In-laws? What about their friends? And then which mental illnesses qualify for this policy? Depression? I believe approximately one out of ten people takes medication for depression. If we confiscate their guns and all the guns of their friends and family, isn't that going to be most of the population? Seems like it would make more sense to just ban guns. Otherwise, we're going to be fighting millions of lawsuits. And then there's the problem that most gun murders AREN'T committed by mentally ill people.

Are you really thinking this through? What's your plan, exactly? If a person is diagnosed with autism, we confiscate all guns from that person's family? How far does that go? Do we take guns away from that person's cousins? In-laws? What about their friends? And then which mental illnesses qualify for this policy? Depression? I believe approximately one out of ten people takes medication for depression. If we confiscate their guns and all the guns of their friends and family, isn't that going to be most of the population? Seems like it would make more sense to just ban guns. Otherwise, we're going to be fighting millions of lawsuits. And then there's the problem that most gun murders AREN'T committed by mentally ill people.

No offense, but your plan kind of sucks.

We could! We could endorse people licences! Make stricter rules. Such as If you get a AWDUI you have to blow into a device in NY to start your car!

We should clamp down when mental health and medication are at play with gun owners.

And then which mental illnesses qualify for this policy? Depression? I believe approximately one out of ten people takes medication for depression

I think Schizophrenia for starters. We should look at the numbers, homicides/suicides committed by people with certain diseases. Over a certain rate, no guns with the diagnostic code.
After schizophrenia, those diagnosed with any kind of ASPD (estimated to be almost half of the entire prison population) would be a good place to start.

Let's depend on SCIENCE and MATH to tell us what's what.

Everything is arbitrary. Blood Alcohol Levels are arbitrary. Recreational Amounts of illicit drugs are set at arbitrarily.

And then there's the problem that most gun murders AREN'T committed by mentally ill people.

Most mass killings are committed by mentally ill people. Most serial killers are mentally ill, if not all of them. Many murders are committed by mentally ill people, including sociopaths which is a mental disorder. Probably the majority of suicides are committed by the mentally ill, with only a fraction being sane people who make a logical decision to engage in euthanasia for themselves due to severe pain interfering with them having any quality of life.

BTW, I said, no guns in the residence. If your kid has depression, you can store the guns at the gun range or gun club. Or just rent the firearms there, if you love guns so much.

THIS will save the lives of hundreds of people each year, just from suicide alone.

Another, simpler solution - no guns under age 30, unless you get a license and/or concealed carry permit.

That's the age where homicides and suicides decline at a profound rate; chances are if you haven't been incarcerated or killed yourself or somebody else, or committed a violent felony at that point, you probably never will.

I think Schizophrenia for starters. We should look at the numbers, homicides/suicides committed by people with certain diseases. Over a certain rate, no guns with the diagnostic code.
After schizophrenia, those diagnosed with any kind of ASPD (estimated to be almost half of the entire prison population) would be a good place to start.

Let's depend on SCIENCE and MATH to tell us what's what.

Everything is arbitrary. Blood Alcohol Levels are arbitrary. Recreational Amounts of illicit drugs are set at arbitrarily.

Yeah, but I didn't ask where it STARTS, I asked where it ENDS. I think we need to control the GUNS, not try to round up all the "mentally ill" people. I would agree that pretty much by definition, a mass murderer is mentally ill. But I don't think we're going to prevent mass murders just by cracking down on mentally ill people. There are many types of mental illness, and most of them don't cause violent behavior.

Most mass killings are committed by mentally ill people. Most serial killers are mentally ill, if not all of them. Many murders are committed by mentally ill people, including sociopaths which is a mental disorder. Probably the majority of suicides are committed by the mentally ill, with only a fraction being sane people who make a logical decision to engage in euthanasia for themselves due to severe pain interfering with them having any quality of life.

Again, if you try to round up ALL the "mentally ill" people and their families, we're probably talking about most of the population. I think that's looking at the problem backwards. Japan has virtually no gun violence. Do you think that's because there are no mentally ill people in Japan? I can't imagine that's the case. What sets the U.S. apart from other countries is we just plain have too many damn guns. We need to start controlling how many guns there are.

BTW, I said, no guns in the residence. If your kid has depression, you can store the guns at the gun range or gun club. Or just rent the firearms there, if you love guns so much.

Again, if you try to round up ALL the "mentally ill" people and their families

Who said Round Up? Identifying high risk individuals and preventing them from obtaining dangerous weapons is common sense. They aren't being "Round Up", they're being denied a right due to the risks to of Public Health - both others, AND themselves.

We don't let blind people drive, we don't (at least in theory) let repeat DUIs drive. Sometimes, Public Health trumps individual freedom; most states restrict the freedom Bacteria Resistant TB sufferers, often at home first, but if they violate, forcibly in hospitals.Homeboy says

Japan has virtually no gun violence.

One of the secrets about Japan (and Singapore and other Asian Countries) is that certain crimes are swept under the rug by authorities or defined differently.

For example, when a man flips out in Japan and kills his wife and 2 kids, it counts as a quadruple suicide - it doesn't count as a murder. Japan has a very high suicide rate, despite the gun ban. Cultural differences.

Japan is an Island with a long history of Xenophobia and no history of widespread gun (or any weapon) ownership. Weapons were restricted to a small class of people for centuries in Japan, long before the modern era. In the UK, the lower classes couldn't afford guns; even poachers used traps, and gun ownership was not widespread outside the top 10%. Not so in the US, where gun ownership has been traditional amongst the classes.

I'm not willing to part with my firearm, I do not trust the government entirely, sorry.

Most mass killings are committed by mentally ill people. Most serial killers are mentally ill, if not all of them. Many murders are committed by mentally ill people, including sociopaths which is a mental disorder. Probably the majority of suicides are committed by the mentally ill, with only a fraction being sane people who make a logical decision to engage in euthanasia for themselves due to severe pain interfering with them having any quality of life.

Mass shootings are terrible, but they're only a small part of the problem. Gun violence on the streets is committed by run of the mill criminals. You tell them that they can't own a gun, and they'll just get one illegally (they already do). It's the mere existence of the guns that lets them obtain them.

It isn't "assault rifles". It isn't "high capacity magazines". It isn't crazy people. It's simply the wide availability of all types of firearms.

A simple revolver is orders of magnitude more lethal than a sword or large knife.

One of the secrets about Japan (and Singapore and other Asian Countries) is that certain crimes are swept under the rug by authorities or defined differently.

For example, when a man flips out in Japan and kills his wife and 2 kids, it counts as a quadruple suicide - it doesn't count as a murder. Japan has a very high suicide rate, despite the gun ban. Cultural differences.

The conversation should be about how to stop deranged mentally ill killers from doing this again. Guns don't reload themselves....

Especially AR's that don't need to reloaded to fire 30 or 100 rounds.

On the subject of violence and mentally ill killers, here is a perfect example of what's being given to the kids at early ages. You mentioned large drum mags.... take a look at what your kids get to "play" with and you wonder how it leads to the real thing if they are already having psych issues....